3 ms·

I mis-spoke. I didn’t mean “rat race.” I meant process. I am not saying there are too many Windows updates; I am saying you are far more likely to have problems

by alanh 14y ago

I mis-spoke. I didn’t mean “rat race.” I meant process. I am not saying there are too many Windows updates; I am saying you are far more likely to have problems after upgrading Windows than you are a Mac. For example, I literally cannot install Windows 7 on a laptop I acquired that shipped with Windows Vista. HP simply does not make the required drivers. It even seems the optical drive will not function correctly during a Win 7 installation attempt. It’s mind-blowingly sucktastic. There are Macs too old for the latest OS X, yes, but they are pretty old, and were able to keep up-to-date for years.

samspot 14y ago
I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.
- sbuk 14y ago
  And what is wrong with that? Seriously. Who is to say that one business model is better than another? Jaguar to Tiger was a big leap, as was Panther to Leopard; certainly as big a leap as XP to Vista.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Eventually I was not able to run safari Of course you were, you were not able to update Safari anymore. And why would you be? > In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Right, 10.0 to 10.8 is exactly the same OS, just 8 service packs, exactly... (you're joking right?)
  - samspot 14y ago
    I wasn't expecting so much hostility, but I'll answer the question. At the time I believe I was comparing 10.2 - 10.3 and I didn't see any value there. It is doubtful that I would still be on 10.2 after 10 years, but I didn't enjoy my time on mac so I never bought another one.
- batista 14y ago
  >I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). That's not how it works. You either go on with the program or you get left behind. >Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself. Especially since the OS went to some major transitions to more modern technologies and APIs, which you opted out from. >In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Sure, because the progress in any other OS has a much higher rate, and those features come for free... (Not to mention that OS X versions cost 1/3 of what Windows versions costed, and now cost 1/8 of that, PLUS you can install the same bought version in multiple machines, so, more like 1/16 of Windows).
  - samspot 14y ago
    You need to look not at the cost of specific versions, but at the cost of staying current over a period of years. I haven't done the math on that. With windows I always upgraded because I wanted the new OS. I've never felt compelled to get the newest windows in order to get something to work (In fact I've had the opposite experience -- upgrade windows only if you want something to break!). >You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself. Yes, by refusing to pay the $80.

by alanh 14y ago

samspot 14y ago

I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.

sbuk 14y ago
And what is wrong with that? Seriously. Who is to say that one business model is better than another? Jaguar to Tiger was a big leap, as was Panther to Leopard; certainly as big a leap as XP to Vista.
masklinn 14y ago
> Eventually I was not able to run safari Of course you were, you were not able to update Safari anymore. And why would you be? > In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Right, 10.0 to 10.8 is exactly the same OS, just 8 service packs, exactly... (you're joking right?)
- samspot 14y ago
  I wasn't expecting so much hostility, but I'll answer the question. At the time I believe I was comparing 10.2 - 10.3 and I didn't see any value there. It is doubtful that I would still be on 10.2 after 10 years, but I didn't enjoy my time on mac so I never bought another one.
batista 14y ago
>I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). That's not how it works. You either go on with the program or you get left behind. >Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself. Especially since the OS went to some major transitions to more modern technologies and APIs, which you opted out from. >In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Sure, because the progress in any other OS has a much higher rate, and those features come for free... (Not to mention that OS X versions cost 1/3 of what Windows versions costed, and now cost 1/8 of that, PLUS you can install the same bought version in multiple machines, so, more like 1/16 of Windows).
- samspot 14y ago
  You need to look not at the cost of specific versions, but at the cost of staying current over a period of years. I haven't done the math on that. With windows I always upgraded because I wanted the new OS. I've never felt compelled to get the newest windows in order to get something to work (In fact I've had the opposite experience -- upgrade windows only if you want something to break!). >You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself. Yes, by refusing to pay the $80.